“the most relevant path of least resistance.” (I)
We have spent earlier time developing the relevance of pro-green and pro-social movements within our culture. Least resistance is also an important factor in producing productive advertising. There are many examples of advertising that has produced much resistance. All one needs to do is seek out banned commercials on Youtube to discover the number of commercials that were offensive and thus created much resistance. One of the most recent instances of this is with a collection of Volkswagen commercials that were banned because of their disturbing nature. This commercial portrays two men having a normal conversation when an unexpected and rather violent accident happens.
This commercial is a perfect example of high resistance. For these recent trends in pro-green and pro-social advertising, there is good news.
There will be little to no resistance from the culture when these positive aspects of life are emphasized within advertising.
No one will complain when companies are portraying an image of helping others or helping the earth. (Unless companies are being hypocritical, such as the commercial from GE as seen above.) Thus, exploiting the current trend of positive causes is a most relevant strategy that will not receive a significant amount of resistance from the popular culture, creating a perfect recipe for increased revenue through advertising.
Contrasting the previous Amoco commercial as seen above, I have posted two of BP’s newest commercials. Comparatively speaking, one can experience the shift in advertising in the past thirty years through viewing these commercials. BP has manipulated this relevant path of least resistance and is portraying an image of positive stewardship within their advertising. In the first commercial, similar to the Amoco commercial, BP is communicating the cleanliness of their fuel, but not for the purpose of getting the extra mile as Amoco previously conveyed. Rather the commercial is communicating clean fuel, which correlates with the clean wind energy in the background in the final shot of the commercial. While the shift may seem minor, it effectively articulates movements in the direction in which I am articulating.
This second commercial is much different but stay with the same overlaying theme of positive steps for using fuel on our planet. The commercial speaks of producing bio fuels that will produce less emissions into our atmosphere. This commercial is a clear step in the direction in which this blog is attempting to communicate.
Similar to GE, it initially seems contradictory to me that BP would use such strategies in their advertising. Yet BP’s final statement in the previous commercial, “It’s a start”, separates them from GE. It is almost as if BP is saying that they know that they have not done well in the past for our planet, but that they are now starting to move in more of an environmentally informed direction.
Gap has also chosen this relevant path of least resistance in it’s advertising strategies. For a long time Gap has stressed the power of celebrity by placing well known celebrities in its commercials. In this commercial Madonna and Missy Elliot both appear. This commercial does not communicate much more than the “cool” groove of Gap jeans worn by “cool” people in Hollywood. Gap is relying on the power of celebrity to sell their product.
Staying with the same power of celebrity, Chris Rock and Jennifer Garner appear in some of Gap’s latest commercials. However these images are different. Rather than highly relying solely upon the celebrity, Gap is also communicating their desire to support Aids in Africa. By dressing these celebrities in their apparel, they are also communicating that these celebrities wear these clothes and support this cause. Gap has taken their previous commercials and message to a higher, deeper, and more relevant level. Like many more companies, Gap is also choosing this relevant path of low resistance. Youtube has opened a new world to advertising. Not only are people intentionally seeking to view advertising through the power of the web, they are also doing their own advertising for these causes with which they identify with. It seems to me that people want to be a part of this story of helping the world through all of the resources that the United States contains. This broadcast is a perfect example of a person intentionally advertising for Gap through their Red Campaign. She speaks of how her story intertwines with Gap’s story in Africa and then encourages others to join in this cause.
The comments that follow her broadcast on the Youtube website are even more astonishing than her willingness to advertise for Gap. 171 people have commented on her broadcast with a wide range of opinions being shared. Some that stood out to me are as follows.
“Absolutely right ackquarius; tell it like it is! Spricket, you did a good thing promoting a good cause. Keep it up.”
“I love you chica, and I know you mean well by this, but I don't agree with this-- I just don't think it's a genuine cause. Corporations like GAP that get involved with charities do it mostly for the publicity and profits: it gives them a good, "charitable" reputation. If you want to help AIDS sufferers, donate to non-profit organizations, not companies who pocket half the profit.”
“So the shirt prevent AIDS? I want one for a neighbor! This is a miracle!”
“The Gap has good products, but I recently found out they have sweatshops. So if you do promote to help fight AIDS, then you should promote to prevent sweatshops from opening.”
From these comments I think that we can start to get a feel for some of the tensions that exist in potentially hypocritical green and pro-social advertising.
No comments:
Post a Comment